UNITED STATES – COUNTERVAILING MEASURES ON
SUPERCALENDERED PAPER FROM Canada

Report of the Panel

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1   Introduction.. 10

1.1   Complaint by Canada. 10

1.2   Panel establishment and composition. 10

1.3   Panel proceedings. 10

1.3.1   General 10

1.3.2   Working Procedures on Business Confidential Information. 11

1.3.3   Working Procedures for open meetings. 11

2   Factual aspects. 11

2.1   The measures at issue. 11

3   Parties' requests for findings and recommendations. 12

4   Arguments of the parties. 12

5   Arguments of the thiRd parties. 12

6   INTERIM REVIEW... 12

7   FINDINGS. 12

7.1   Introduction. 12

7.2   General principles regarding treaty interpretation, the standard of review, and burden of proof 13

7.2.1   Treaty interpretation. 13

7.2.2   Standard of review.. 13

7.2.3   Burden of proof 13

7.3   Claims concerning the USDOC's CVD determination with respect to PHP. 14

7.3.1   Claims concerning the provision of electricity to PHP by NSPI 14

7.3.1.1   Introduction. 14

7.3.1.2   Factual background. 14

7.3.1.2.1   The relevant facts on the USDOC record. 14

7.3.1.2.2   The USDOC's determination. 16

7.3.1.3   Main arguments of the parties. 20

7.3.1.4   Evaluation by the Panel 22

7.3.1.4.1   Whether the USDOC acted inconsistently with Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) of the SCM Agreement by finding that NSPI was entrusted or directed to provide electricity. 22

7.3.1.4.1.1   What was the USDOC's financial contribution finding?. 24

7.3.1.4.1.2   Whether the USDOC's finding of entrustment or direction is inconsistent with Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) of the SCM Agreement 27

7.3.1.4.2   Whether the USDOC's acted inconsistently with Articles 1.1(b) and 14(d) of the SCM Agreement by finding that the provision of electricity by NSPI conferred a benefit to PHP. 30

7.3.1.4.3   Whether the USDOC acted inconsistently with Article 12.8 of the SCM Agreement by failing to notify interested parties of "essential facts" regarding the provision of electricity. 33

7.3.2   Claims concerning the hot idle funding and the FIF. 34

7.3.2.1   Introduction. 34

7.3.2.2   Whether the USDOC properly found that a benefit resulting from the hot idle funding was conferred to PHP. 34

7.3.2.2.1   Factual background. 34

7.3.2.2.1.1   The relevant facts on the record. 34

7.3.2.2.1.2   The USDOC's determination. 35

7.3.2.2.2   Main arguments of the parties. 36

7.3.2.2.3   Evaluation by the panel 38

7.3.2.3   Whether the USDOC properly found that any benefit resulting from the FIF was conferred to PHP  39

7.3.2.3.1   Factual background. 39

7.3.2.3.1.1   The relevant facts on the record. 39

7.3.2.3.1.2   The USDOC's determination. 40

7.3.2.3.2   Main arguments of the parties. 41

7.3.2.3.3   Evaluation by the Panel 42

7.3.3   Claim concerning the provision of stumpage and biomass to PHP. 42

7.3.3.1   Introduction. 42

7.3.3.2   Factual background. 43

7.3.3.3   Main arguments of the parties. 44

7.3.3.4   Evaluation by the Panel 45

7.4   Claims concerning the USDOC's CVD determination with respect to Resolute. 47

7.4.1   Claims concerning the application of AFA to Resolute in relation to information discovered at verification  47

7.4.1.1   Introduction. 47

7.4.1.2   Factual background. 47

7.4.1.2.1   The relevant facts on the record. 47

7.4.1.2.2   The USDOC's determination. 49

7.4.1.3   Main arguments of the parties. 49

7.4.1.4   Evaluation by the Panel 51

7.4.2   Claim concerning Resolute's purchase of Fibrek. 56

7.4.2.1   Introduction. 56

7.4.2.2   Factual background. 56

7.4.2.3   Main arguments of the parties. 57

7.4.2.4   Evaluation by the Panel 58

7.4.3   Claims concerning the PPGTP, FSPF, and NIER programmes. 64

7.4.3.1   Introduction. 64

7.4.3.2   Factual background. 64

7.4.3.3   Main arguments of the parties. 65

7.4.3.4   Evaluation by the Panel 66

7.5   Claims concerning the CVD determinations with respect to Irving and Catalyst 69

7.5.1   Claims concerning the calculation of the all-others rate. 69

7.5.1.1   Introduction. 69

7.5.1.2   Factual background. 70

7.5.1.3   Main arguments of the parties. 71

7.5.1.4   Evaluation by the Panel 72

7.5.2   Claims concerning the expedited reviews. 76

7.5.2.1   Introduction. 76

7.5.2.2   Factual background. 77

7.5.2.3   Main arguments of the parties. 77

7.5.2.4   Evaluation by the Panel 79

7.6   Claims concerning the "Other Forms of Assistance-AFA measure". 81

7.6.1.1   Introduction. 81

7.6.1.2   Main arguments of the parties. 81

7.6.1.3   Evaluation by the Panel 83

7.6.1.3.1   Whether Canada has established the existence of the "Other Forms of Assistance-AFA measure"  83

7.6.1.3.1.1   The precise content of the "Other Forms of Assistance-AFA measure". 84

7.6.1.3.1.2   The repeated application of the "Other Forms of Assistance-AFA measure" and the likelihood of its continuation. 91

7.6.1.3.2   Conclusion. 96

8   CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION.. 97